From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail137.messagelabs.com (mail137.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 718336B0047 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from d23relay03.au.ibm.com (d23relay03.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.234]) by e23smtp04.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n07It934005706 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:55:09 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay03.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n07Ivgh02158720 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:57:42 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n07Iukxf026936 for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:56:46 +1100 Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:26:27 +0530 From: Dhaval Giani Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4] Memory controller soft limit patches Message-ID: <20090107185627.GL4145@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: Dhaval Giani References: <20090107184110.18062.41459.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090107184110.18062.41459.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Balbir Singh Cc: Andrew Morton , Sudhir Kumar , YAMAMOTO Takashi , Paul Menage , lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, David Rientjes , Pavel Emelianov , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki List-ID: On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:10AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote: > > Here is v1 of the new soft limit implementation. Soft limits is a new feature > for the memory resource controller, something similar has existed in the > group scheduler in the form of shares. We'll compare shares and soft limits > below. I've had soft limit implementations earlier, but I've discarded those > approaches in favour of this one. > > Soft limits are the most useful feature to have for environments where > the administrator wants to overcommit the system, such that only on memory > contention do the limits become active. The current soft limits implementation > provides a soft_limit_in_bytes interface for the memory controller and not > for memory+swap controller. The implementation maintains an RB-Tree of groups > that exceed their soft limit and starts reclaiming from the group that > exceeds this limit by the maximum amount. > > This is an RFC implementation and is not meant for inclusion > > TODOs > > 1. The shares interface is not yet implemented, the current soft limit > implementation is not yet hierarchy aware. The end goal is to add > a shares interface on top of soft limits and to maintain shares in > a manner similar to the group scheduler Just to clarify, when there is no contention, you want to share memory proportionally? thanks, -- regards, Dhaval -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org